Piers Morgan Delivers One Final Blow To Gun Violence In Last Show
209 replies, posted
Well, I think firearms are fine, I know people who own some here in england. I don't think out right banning firearms just perhaps stricter control on the loopholes and such.
As long as firearms remain as a [B]HOBBY[/B] and not considered the only way to defend yourself and prevent all crime. Home defence is fine, because there is not a lot you can do when someone breaks into your house, but I don't really think it should be necessary to have open or concealed carry.
A lot of countries get by just fine without firearms, that is enough to prove its not entirely necessary for all people to own firearms, so portraying that its the only way to stop most crime and prevent many deaths is wrong. Maybe in Americas current situation, it may be best to let individuals defend them self because there is just too many guns in circulation already, the black market of firearms may be bigger than it is in other countries and the Police may not be entirely reliable in every situation. So yeah I agree, if you're in a bad part of the country where crime happens quite often, having a firearm would be necessary, all I'm saying is that once the peace and order has been restored, you wouldn't really need a firearm in all situations.
But criminals may always find a way to get guns, but having such a large gun market is just naturally going to make it easier to obtain firearms.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44398543]Well obviously it didn't lead to immediate effects because
A.) People still had their guns at home, nothing much changed, and
B.) Assault weapons are least used in murders and suicides
In any case, guns are made for killing, and as only a small percentage of all gun owners actually go hunting, so I don't see what's good about everybody having access to a gun.
[B] Especially in cases of suicide, a lot of deaths could've been prevented if the person in question simply didn't have access to a gun. The pulling of a trigger is an extremely effortless and quick way to die, which is what makes it so attractive.[/B][/QUOTE]
Chances are, if someone's going to commit suicide, they'll do it however they can gun or not. If they can't shoot them selves, they'll jump in front of a car or something like that like what happened to that one Facepuncher ~a month ago. Lady jumped in front of his car while he was driving with his friend to commit suicide.
[QUOTE=James*;44399839]Okay what about the other 41 people that were shot to death
And why didn't tons of people die in the London riots when shop owners didn't have guns to defend themselves[/QUOTE]
I'd also wager that most of the people shot to death would have been killed by other means. [url=http://articles.latimes.com/1992-05-03/news/mn-1941_1_matt-haines]Matthew Haines died when two juveniles pulled Mr. Haines from his motorcycle, beat him and shot him in the head on April 30 in Long Beach.[/url] Most of the deaths in the LA Riots went this way.
The London riots weren't even on the same scale as the LA riots, not even close.
i'm so glad i don't live in a country where i feel the need to own a firearm in order to feel safe :~)
[QUOTE=Acezorz;44399862]i'm so glad i don't live in a country where i feel the need to own a firearm in order to feel safe :~)[/QUOTE]
I dunno man, if people got decapitated in broad daylight in my country I wouldn't feel too safe.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44398543]Well obviously it didn't lead to immediate effects because
A.) People still had their guns at home, nothing much changed, and[/QUOTE]
Which is why gun bans dont fucking work lol. The guns are already out there, banning them after the fact doesn't work. Theres not a whole lot of stuff that outright bans actually work on guns sure as shit isn't one of them.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44398543]
B.) Assault weapons are least used in murders and suicides[/QUOTE]
So then why ban them. $1,000,000 supercars probably have a low overall fatality rate but it's not uncommon to see them in the news when one crashes. Thats no justification for banning them though now is it?
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44398543]
In any case, guns are made for killing, and as only a small percentage of all gun owners actually go hunting, so I don't see what's good about everybody having access to a gun.[/QUOTE]
Not everyone owns a gun for hunting so no shit. Most gun owners spend time at the range at least once a month. 99.99% of gun owners are not a potential hazard to themselves or anyone else; just because you don't understand a hobby doesn't justify you or the government to ban it. I don't understand why gear heads love tweaking with their cars and tuning up junkers, but I know for a fact we lose tons more people to car accidents than we do gun violence but I'm not calling for all cars to have speed governors installed on them even though it makes sense to an outsider like me.
[QUOTE=Doom64hunter;44398543]
Especially in cases of suicide, a lot of deaths could've been prevented if the person in question simply didn't have access to a gun. The pulling of a trigger is an extremely effortless and quick way to die, which is what makes it so attractive.[/QUOTE]
If a person is going to commit suicide, they're going to do it regardless if they have a handgun, an AR-15, a M82, or a bottle of medication. Obviously a firearm is going to be more effective but the lack of one isn't going to stop someone whose suicidal, else we'd see less people cutting their wrists and jumping off bridges.
[QUOTE=Foosili;44399860]I'd also wager that most of the people shot to death would have been killed by other means.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't, guns make killing very easy
[QUOTE=James*;44399921]I wouldn't, guns make killing very easy[/QUOTE]
I'd wager you're infinitely more likely to get killed in a car accident than you are to get shot in a driveby or a mass shooting.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44399931]I'd wager you're infinitely more likely to get killed in a car accident than you are to get shot in a driveby or a mass shooting.[/QUOTE]
ban cars
[QUOTE=James*;44399921]I wouldn't, guns make killing very easy[/QUOTE]
I disagree. If I tried to kill someone who had a gun It'd be pretty difficult.
[QUOTE=sambooo;44397328]I can never really understand how people can be so overwhelmingly in favour of guns being legal. [/QUOTE]
A lot of us do not want our hobby to be banned because of the criminal acts of a very few. It's not right to punish the millions of Americans who safely own firearms for the purpose of either collecting them or using them for target shooting(The latter being why I own them). The vast majority of firearms in civilian ownership will never even be aimed at another person, much less fired at one. No reason to punish all of those people for the actions of gangbangers and maniacs.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44399931]I'd wager you're infinitely more likely to get killed in a car accident than you are to get shot in a driveby or a mass shooting.[/QUOTE]
I don't disagree but how is that even relevant. Key word is 'accident'
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44399917] I don't understand why gear heads love tweaking with their cars and tuning up junkers[/QUOTE]
Not much to understand, really. We find it fun! We enjoy it!
[QUOTE=Foosili;44399947]I disagree. If I tried to kill someone who had a gun It'd be pretty difficult.[/QUOTE]
Well lots of y'all have guns already and it doesn't seem to be stopping people from getting shot
[QUOTE=James*;44399951]I don't disagree but how is that even relevant. Key word is 'accident'[/QUOTE]
Because the person you were quoting was saying they'd may have been killed by other means if the shooter hadn't killed them; you disagreed saying guns are killing machines; i disagreed saying car accidents kill way more people than guns do.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44399968]Because the person you were quoting was saying they'd may have been killed by other means if the shooter hadn't killed them; you disagreed saying guns are killing machines; i disagreed saying car accidents kill way more people than guns do.[/QUOTE]
Yeah that still doesn't make any sense, sorry. Are you saying 41 people would have just been run down instead?
[QUOTE=James*;44399976]Yeah that still doesn't make any sense, sorry. Are you saying 41 people would have just been run down instead?[/QUOTE]
How does it not lol? I'm saying they're more likely to have been killed in a car accident on the way to school/theater/mall/wherever than they were to have been gunned down in a random act of violence.
[QUOTE=James*;44399963]Well lots of y'all have guns already and it doesn't seem to be stopping people from getting shot[/QUOTE]
[url=http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/41.lott_.final_.pdf]John Lott’s Crime, Deterrence, and Right-to-Carry Concealed Handguns[/url] states that “Allowing citizens without criminal records or histories of significant mental illness to carry concealed handguns deters violent crimes”
SAF's Prez Alan Gottlieb has gone on record stating "Surveys have repeatedly revealed that predatory criminals fear armed citizens. Just the thought that an intended victim might be armed, and willing to fight back, tends to discourage some of these outlaws.”
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44399987]How does it not lol? I'm saying they're more likely to have been killed in a car accident on the way to school/theater/mall/wherever than they were to have been gunned down in a random act of violence.[/QUOTE]
And again, what does this have to do with people shot in the riots
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
I think you missed the whole point of that exchange entirely
Most homicides with firearms are one sided, against people who are unarmed. I hope you can see where I'm going with this.
[QUOTE=James*;44400005]
I think you missed the whole point of that exchange entirely[/QUOTE]
and you're ignoring mine so I guess we're even.
[QUOTE=Foosili;44400014]Most homicides with firearms are one sided, against people who are unarmed. I hope you can see where I'm going with this.[/QUOTE]
Neither people being armed seems like it would be just as effective as both being armed, with the added bonus of no possibility of them both shooting each other
[editline]30th March 2014[/editline]
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;44400018]and you're ignoring mine so I guess we're even.[/QUOTE]
Cars aren't designed to kill, and are also heavily regulated
[QUOTE=James*;44400023]Neither people being armed seems like it would be just as effective as both being armed, with the added bonus of no possibility of them both shooting each other[/QUOTE]
I'm glad you brought this up.
Here's the HUUUUUUUUGE problem. Guns are ALREADY in circulation in society. There is no easy solution to remove them, so the only thing to do to prevent further deaths is through Deterrence (which works as I've stated in previous posts with actual citations and proof, etc.). This means that banning guns outright is not going to work. I know it's hard for you to undertstand that from a cultural standpoint because you live in a country where there are very very few guns in circulation. In America it's a completely different story. Banning guns outright right now in America would cause more violent riots and general civil unrest than we've seen in the last twenty years, easily.
[QUOTE=Foosili;44400051]I'm glad you brought this up.
Here's the HUUUUUUUUGE problem. Guns are ALREADY in circulation in society. There is no easy solution to remove them, so the only thing to do to prevent further deaths is through Deterrence (which works as I've stated in previous posts with actual citations and proof, etc.). This means that banning guns outright is not going to work. I know it's hard for you to undertstand that from a cultural standpoint because you live in a country where there are very very few guns in circulation. In America it's a completely different story. Banning guns outright right now in America would cause more violent riots and general civil unrest than we've seen in the last twenty years, easily.[/QUOTE]
I realise there are practical issues but I think in principle a society in which people don't feel the need to conceal carry is more desirable than one in which they do
[QUOTE=James*;44400102]I realise there are practical issues but I think in principle a society in which people don't feel the need to conceal carry is more desirable than one in which they do[/QUOTE]
Of course it is! I'm 100% in agreement with you there! I'd love to walk down central Modesto, California (land of meth, death, and auto theft - and also where I live.) Without feeling the need to have a firearm. But the fact is I am not safe outside of my own neighborhood if I'm walking. Especially at night. Until the day this changes, I will need a form of deterrence at my side to stop potential danger to myself and the people I'm with.
Piers Morgan is such a daft cunt, no wonder he jumped ship to join the likes of his brethren.
[QUOTE=Explosions;44397696]A semiautomatic rifle. An assault rifle has selective fire capabilities.[/QUOTE]
There's no reason for anyone to have either though. You could easily defend yourself with a glock.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;44400695]There's no reason for anyone to have either though. You could easily defend yourself with a glock.[/QUOTE]
Hunting? Target shooting?
Also handguns are the number one used weapon in the (relatively low number of) gun homicides. Why would you make this argument at all?
[QUOTE=Foosili;44400709]Hunting? Target shooting?
Also handguns are the number one used weapon in the (relatively low number of) gun homicides. Why would you make this argument at all.[/QUOTE]
Hunting and target practice are hobbies though. Everytime I try to argue with a gun nut, the reply is basically "but....it's fun to shoot stuff." Don't get me wrong, I'm not against guns, but it's just unnecessary to have semi auto rifles, and other "tactical" weapons unless you are some kind of professional.
[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;44400773]Hunting and target practice are hobbies though. Everytime I try to argue with a gun nut, the reply is basically "but....it's fun to shoot stuff." Don't get me wrong, I'm not against guns, but it's just unnecessary to have semi auto rifles, and other "tactical" weapons unless you are some kind of professional.[/QUOTE]
So you are ok with handguns, which are used by criminals specifically because they are easy to hide and account for the majority of gun deaths, but not with semi-automatic rifles, which are used in hardly any crime?
Yeah, ban the stuff that looks scary, not what actually kills people!
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.